If you feel uncomfortable with being preachy perhaps donation matching may feel more so than just highlighting that you are donating a percentage of earnings.

Edit: upon reflection I think this idea may not be that useful. Since the 10% pledge is for the entire career, not each year, that flexibility is already incorporated. And a pause could produce some attrition.

Thanks Luke! It makes sense what you mention. It is true that it would become significantly more messy to track, even when the spirit of the 10% pledge would suggest accounting for it. Just a random idea: perhaps you could offer the option of “pausing” the pledge temporarily so it does not become a blocker for people aiming to do direct work that they deem to be particularly impactful.

I think there might be a confusion here. Your claim is that the dollars we own are more valuable per dollar

Clearly the dollars you own are the most valuable. If you think someone else could do more with your dollars, you can just give them your dollars!

But the post is referring to the overall amount of dollars. Eg Jeff Bezos dollars might be more valuable than mine.

What I mean is that there’s some hard to objectively reduce uncertainty about these choices, so it is important to attach the pledge to the method or goal, not the result we get at one point in time.

It would be similar as EA becoming just about animal welfare. Even if it were the most effective use of resources, you want to keep the method, not just stick to the result, and obviate how you got there.

After all, changing assumptions (for example in the tools provided by rethink priorities, https://rethinkpriorities.org/our-research-areas/worldview-investigations/) you can get different answers of what you should prioritise.

I am a bit confused by 2b. I would argue that the spirit of the 10% pledge is to donate part of your possible income. So if you have offers by $2X but instead take a direct impact job that you deem highly impactful for just $X, then you are donating close to $X already? In fact, the condition

and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.

may be looked the other way round. If you can take the $2X job now, but you may not in the future (say, because you are changing fields), you may be donating more than just $X this year.

For what is worth, I think keeping cause neutrality is important: the spirit of the 10% pledge is to do the most good, not choose specific causes. I would find it reasonable to highlight reasons why one may consider cause X particularly effective, but not give a final answer on this.

Let us imagine you live in a couple but you are the only one currently getting an income, but you fully share finances. Would it be reasonable to donate half of 10%?

Suppose someone takes a direct-impact job that directly lowers the salary by double-digit percentage, particularly when changing careers. What is the best rule of thumb for incorporating that into the amount pledged?